… or Global Warming (according to the anagram server Greg has shown us). It is a topic that is very interesting to me, but one that I will most likely not blog about often, as the science and scope of this discussion is a bit out off my league – and my feelings are pretty much in line with what you will find here and here.
I feel that the global warming hysteria (yes I feel comfortable calling it that) is far more emotional than rational. And don’t confuse me with some SUV driving republican who could give a shit about the environment. I once even started a landscaping company that focused on hand powered tools as opposed to gas to help cut down on noise and air pollution (it failed by the way, my fault most likely). Either way, I consider myself a conservationist and have a strong desire to be a good steward of the earth that God has provided us. Hiking up in the Sierras will do that to a city boy. That said, I still feel that conservationism and proper environmental behavior is completely suitable with thinking that the global warming focus is nonsense. One of the links above goes to Bjørn Lomborg’s website, where you can find out about his economic views of global warming. Basically he believes the money requested (billions and billions) to potentially change temperature a 1/2 degree in a hundred years could be much better spent fixing things now – if you check out anything from this post please let it be to watch this video of Bjørn at TED Conference in Monterey a few years ago.
But it is not only because I think the focus of the hysteria is misguided, it is also because I continually read posts like this one, that detail how facts and figures are seemingly made up in order to gibe with alarmists preconceived notions:
A surreal scientific blunder last week raised a huge question mark about the temperature records that underpin the worldwide alarm over global warming. On Monday, Nasa’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), which is run by Al Gore’s chief scientific ally, Dr James Hansen, and is one of four bodies responsible for monitoring global temperatures, announced that last month was the hottest October on record.
But as the post goes on to state, October was noticeably not the hottest, and caused people to start to investigate:
The reason for the freak figures was that scores of temperature records from Russia and elsewhere were not based on October readings at all. Figures from the previous month had simply been carried over and repeated two months running.
And this is from NASA. In a published announcement. The post goes on to say that NASA says they received the numbers from a third-party group and do not have the man power to check it all. Then here’s an idea… don’t publish a report on it. But certain members of the scientific community and alarmists in general are so anxious for facts to corroborate their theories, they are willing to go out with unchecked numbers. This is why I like the term hysteria to describe the views of global warming alarmist. Because hysteria tends to be founded on less than substantial information, and almost always dies down once cooler heads prevail (I tend to think that in 5 years we will talk about global warming in a way that is quite dismissive of the way it is labored about today).
Mark
Sgt. Grumbles
Elijah
Pete
Yeah, those who award the Nobel Prize are dumbshits, correct?
@Anonymous
Ivar Giaever (Nobel Prize Winner) is a skeptic, Al Gore (Nobel Prize Winner) is not. So apparently the Nobel Prize can no longer be used as quantitative of anything.
Thanks for your contribution.
Mark,
I can understand where Lomborg is coming from, but I don’t really buy much of what he says (for instance: http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/10/14/bjorn-lomborg-how-did-you-get-those-numbers/), and not because he doesn’t believe what he is saying. I believe that he has very solid convictions based upon sound reason. But he is primarily a political scientist and economist, and to be honest, I don’t believe that those necessarily enable someone to be a priority-setter for the world.
I believe that it might be (from our meager point of view) more financially feasible to let climate change run its course, as some have suggested (see http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap4-3/final-report/default.htm). But I think it would be a good thing, at any rate, to at least develop technologies and programs to offset carbon emissions, a task which seems very much in the spirit of capitalism to me.
I also agree with you that simply responding with alarmist emotion is not a positive, nor fruitful thing. But there are people on both sides employing both reason and emotion. To paint one movement or the other as irrational is not an honest assessment.
Eli-
Sometimes I feel like we are writing this blog to each other. :)
I have read many of the issues with Bjørn, and I understand that he is a political scientist. However the basis of most of his global solutions platform is founded on the Copenhagen Consensus Center (http://www.copenhagenconsensus.com/Default.aspx?ID=755) so it is not him alone in his room coming up with stuff.
This post was less to do with whether global warming is happening, or man-made, etc. But about the hysteria surrounding it (which you can find in many of the comments of the post you linked to here). The very fact that people shout down any dissent from scientists or intellectuals from other schools is alarming… especially considering the costs they are advocating, and the consequences it has to not only us, but to developing nations who would be affected the most.
As an aside, capitalism is definitely in the works here – Al Gore is making millions (http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2008/03/11/al-gores-fund-closes-after-attracting-5-billion/) off selling carbon off-sets – my super cynical self sees this as a good reason for him to preach the worst.
For the record, I wasn’t supposing this post had to do with the existence or non-existence of climate change, as Lomborg clearly believes that it is a problem. I also addressed the alarmist issue, which I am in full agreement with you on. I am just putting it out there that there is a lot of good science behind the climate change issue on both sides, and not everyone who advocates doing something about global warming–and the belief that “fixing it” must be a priority–is an alarmist. This whole thing used to be slanted the other way, as our culture used to suppress the global warming movement (and many think tanks/lobbyists still do).
“but to developing nations who would be affected the most.” There’s no room for this talk in self-interest (facetiousness).
“Sometimes I feel like we are writing this blog to each other.”
Now that’s just not cool. How do you think that makes me and anonymous feel?
I do think we need some more hot celebrity pics to spice things up here. Couldn’t you write about global warming by having a picture of Paris Hilton topless on the beach in Monaco?
My vote goes with Greg.
Dudes, read this if you haven’t already:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
Basically, this scientist did a study on the ice caps on Mars and found that they have been heating up at roughly the same rate as those on our own dear planet. One problem- there are no SUVs on Mars. I’d like to write more but I only get about 3 minutes a day to look at “Criticism,” and my time is almost up. I’m trying to figure out a way around the firewall at school to get some more time in…wish me luck.
Pete,
From what you’ve written it sounds like you’re trying to argue causes of global warming, but that’s not really what we’re discussing in this thread. If it were I would point out that even proponents of “fixing global warming” wouldn’t argue that automobiles are producing the majority of carbon dioxide in our atmosphere.
I also don’t see how your “one problem” is actually a problem: Mars’ atmosphere is 95% carbon dioxide, so this presents a good opportunity for warming. Some speculate that dust storms are uncovering large portions of certain materials that heat up more than the typical martian soil, radiating more heat in the carbon atmosphere and causing warming.
The situation/variables are much different than that on Earth too; if we’re dealing with greenhouse effect on Mars we have to note that Mars is roughly 50 million miles further from the sun than Earth, affecting its temperature tremendously (according to http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PLANETS/mars.htm, Mars is -30 to -200F on the surface). Also, Mars’ ice caps aren’t made up of the same material as Earth’s ice caps. If Mars and Earth are experiencing the same thing then I would say that it’s very convincing to argue for seasonal, non-man-made climate change (as we’ve observed Mars’ caps ebb and flow for years).
But if we have lessons to learn from Mars I don’t think that they are “don’t bother trying to deal with climate change.” Some scientists suspect Mars was once a thriving planet with a more moderate climate, like Earth. If there is anything we can do to off-set one day becoming like Mars (I’m not saying this is immanent or necessarily the case), we ought to push for that for the sake of stewardship and the abilities that God has given us. If an asteroid were headed toward Earth we wouldn’t argue about dealing with it based upon whether or not we caused this asteroid. If one wants to deny the existence of climate change and the possible effects it would have on our planet, that’s acceptable, but I believe it’s irresponsible with the data available, even provided by the Bush administration.
[...] 19, 2008 by Mark There has been some good discussion going on in the comments on my original post (mostly by us authors), and so I wanted to direct attention to that. Though the original post [...]
Elijah, did you read the article? The scientist says it much better than me. I was only attempting to give a quick, if glib, preview of what the article is about (the article never actually talks about SUVs). Please, argue with the article, not with me.
The cause of global warming really is the debate though (no one’s denying that the earth has warmed up). If we’re not the ones causing it and it’s out of our control, then let’s stop spending billions of dollars trying to fix it. The scientist in the article says that he expects the earth to go into a cooling cycle within 20 or 30 years (I forget exactly the number)- if that’s the case let’s stop regulating the hell of auto manufacturers and spending all of our money on a problem that will right itself. If the scientist is right, let’s use our God-given minds to solve other problems.
ELIJAH ADDS: Pete, did you read my whole comment or only the first two paragraphs?
I did read the article, and I am not disagreeing with what it says, but what I am saying is:
1) that it is fully possible for global warming to be natural on Mars and not natural on Earth.
2) that if there is something we can do about global warming, then we ought to work on it.
Also, with regard to “the debate” (your response: “The cause of global warming really is the debate though”), I was only saying the case of whether it is man-made or not isn’t the issue in this particular thread: “This post was less to do with whether global warming is happening, or man-made, etc. But about the hysteria surrounding it (which you can find in many of the comments of the post you linked to here).” – Mark. I wasn’t saying that it isn’t an issue, period.
I agree that if it there is a strong case that we can’t do anything to work against global warming and the problems it may cause (and is causing), then we ought not. I also agree that the pressure on the automakers must stop. It’s just a smokescreen to satisfy the masses anyway. The real culprit with regard to the concept of man-made global warming is not our automobiles, but primarily how we create energy. I am personally attracted to the Pickens Plan.
I think we’ve had a little miscommunication, a common occurrence on the internet. I wasn’t arguing with the article at any point in my post, but your conclusion from the article, even if it was a glib summary.
Also, Mark and Pete, we probably have more in common than you suppose, with regard to the economy, politics, theology, etc. I just think it is possible and arguable that there can be varying points of view on these issues, points of view that are just as reasonable as other conclusions.
Elijah,
I agree that we have much to agree on, and I don’t mean to be argumentative, but I don’t see how you disagree with my conclusion but don’t disagree with the article. My conclusion is exactly the same as the article, which is that global warming may very well not be a man-made phenomenon. I wasn’t actually making any conclusion of my own, I was just telling you about the article and the conclusion it reaches.
I do realize though that the cause of global warming was not the thrust of the thread, so maybe it was out of place. I thought though that Mark, and perhaps yourself and others would be interested to read that article, so I figured it was on-topic enough to post. Again, I was a little glib in my summary, but I was not meaning to be argumentative- I just thought the article would be interesting to others.
I had not heard of the Pickens plan, so I will read up on that (I saw something about it in one of Mark’s new posts but haven’t had a chance to read yet- man, you guys post like crazy, I can’t keep up!).
[...] A recurring topic that I have brought up on CAI before regards global warming (see here, and here) and they way that it is presented in the media and culture. I most often feel that to even [...]